Top

Quality of Life Research

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in:

01-08-2008

Health state preference scores for children with permanent childhood hearing loss: a comparative analysis of the QWB and HUI3

Auteurs: Laura Smith-Olinde, Scott D. Grosse, Frank Olinde, Patti F. Martin, John M. Tilford

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2008

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare two preference-weighted, caregiver-reported measures of health-related quality of life for children with permanent childhood hearing loss to determine whether cost-effectiveness analysis applied to deaf and hard of hearing populations will provide similar answers based on the choice of instrument.

Methods

Caregivers of 103 children in Arkansas, USA, with documented hearing loss completed the Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB) and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) to describe the health status of their children. Audiology and other clinical measures were abstracted from medical records. Mean scores were compared overall and by degree of hearing loss. Linear regression was used to correlate preference scores with a four-frequency pure-tone average, cochlear implant status, and other factors.

Results

Mean preference scores for the QWB and HUI3 were similar (0.601 and 0.619, respectively) although the HUI3 demonstrated a wider range of values (−0.132 to 1.000) compared to the QWB (0.345–0.854) and was more sensitive to mild hearing loss. Both measures correlated with the pure-tone average, were negatively associated with comorbid conditions and positively associated with cochlear implant status. In the best fitting regression models, similar estimates for cochlear implant status and comorbid conditions were obtained from the two measures.

Conclusions

Despite considerable differences in the HUI3 and the QWB scale, we found agreement between the two instruments at the mean, but clinically important differences across a number of measures. The two instruments are likely to yield different estimates of cost-effectiveness ratios, especially for interventions involving mild to moderate hearing loss.

vorige artikel Evidence on the construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 in patients with chronic kidney disease

volgende artikel Separating gains and losses in health when calculating the minimum important difference for mapped utility measures

Dalton, D. S., Cruickshanks, K. J., Klein, B. E., Klein, R., Wiley, T. L., & Nondahl, D. M. (2003). The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist, 43, 661–668. PubMed

Pugh, K. C. (2004). Health status attributes of older African-American adults with hearing loss. Journal of the National Medical Association, 96, 772–779. PubMed

Wake, M., Hughes, E. K., Collins, C. M., & Poulakis, Z. (2004). Parent-reported health-related quality of life in children with congenital hearing loss: A population study. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 4, 411–417. doi: 10.1367/A03-191R.1. PubMedCrossRef

Stacey, P. C., Fortnum, H. M., Barton, G. R., & Summerfield, A. Q. (2006). Hearing-impaired children in the United Kingdom, I: Auditory performance, communication skills, educational achievements, quality of life, and cochlear implantation. Ear and Hearing, 27, 161–186. doi: 10.1097/01.aud.0000202353.37567.b4. PubMedCrossRef

Cheng, A. K., Rubin, H. R., Powe, N. R., Mellon, N. K., Francis, H. W., & Niparko, J. K. (2000). Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 850–856. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.7.850. PubMedCrossRef

Huber, M. (2005). Health-related quality of life of Austrian children and adolescents with cochlear implants. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 69, 1089–1101. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.02.018. PubMedCrossRef

Moeller, M. P., Hoover, B., Putman, C., Arbataitis, K., Bohnenkamp, G., Peterson, B., Lewis, D., Estee, S., Pittman, A., & Stelmachowicz, P. (2007). Vocalizations of infants with hearing loss compared with infants with normal hearing. Part II. Transition to words. Ear and Hearing, 28, 628–642. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31812564c9. PubMedCrossRef

Moeller, M. P., Hoover, B., Putman, C., Arbataitis, K., Bohnenkamp, G., Peterson, B., Wood, S., Lewis, D., Pittman, A., & Stelmachowicz, P. (2007). Vocalizations of infants with hearing loss compared with infants with normal hearing. Part I. Phonetic development. Ear and Hearing, 28, 605–627. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31812564ab. PubMedCrossRef

Puig, T., Municio, A., & Meda, C. (2005). Universal neonatal hearing screening versus selective screening as part of the management of childhood deafness. Cochrane Database Systematic Review, CD003731.

10.

Bess, F. H., & Paradise, J. L. (1994). Universal screening for infant hearing impairment: Not simple, not risk-free, not necessarily beneficial, and not presently justified. Pediatrics, 93, 330–334. PubMed

11.

Thompson, D. C., McPhillips, H., Davis, R. L., Lieu, T. L., Homer, C. J., & Helfand, M. (2001). Universal newborn hearing screening: Summary of evidence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 2000–2010. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.16.2000. PubMedCrossRef

12.

Kennedy, C. R., McCann, D. C., Campbell, M. J., Law, C. M., Mullee, M., Petrou, S., Watkin, P., Worsfold, S., Yuen, H. M., & Stevenson, J. (2006). Language ability after early detection of permanent childhood hearing impairment. New England Journal of Medicine, 354, 2131–2141. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa054915. PubMedCrossRef

13.

Schroeder, L., Petrou, S., Kennedy, C., McCann, D., Law, C., Watkin, P. M., Worsfold, S., & Yuen, H. M. (2006). The economic costs of congenital bilateral permanent childhood hearing impairment. Pediatrics, 117, 1101–1112. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-1335. PubMedCrossRef

14.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (1999). Benefits of early intervention for children with hearing loss. Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America, 32, 1089–1102. doi: 10.1016/S0030-6665(05)70196-1. PubMedCrossRef

15.

Downs, M. P., & Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (1999). The efficacy of early identification and intervention for children with hearing impairment. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 46, 79–87. doi: 10.1016/S0031-3955(05)70082-1. PubMedCrossRef

16.

Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

17.

Neumann, P. J., Goldie, S. J., & Weinstein, M. C. (2000). Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 587–611. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.587. PubMedCrossRef

18.

Gold, M. R., Patrick, D. L., Hadorn, D. C., Kamlet, M. S., Torrance, G. W., Fryback, D. G., Daniels, N., & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Identifying and valuing outcomes. In M. R. Gold, J. E. Siegel, L. B. Russell, & M. C. Weinstein (Eds.), Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine (pp. 82–134). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

19.

UK Cochlear Implant Study Group. (2004). Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults III: Prospective evaluation of an actuarial approach to defining a criterion. Ear and Hearing, 25, 361–374. doi: 10.1097/01.AUD.0000134551.13162.88. CrossRef

20.

Bichey, B. G., Hoversland, J. M., Wynne, M. K., & Miyamoto, R. T. (2002). Changes in quality of life and the cost-utility associated with cochlear implantation in patients with large vestibular aqueduct syndrome. Otology and Neurotology, 23, 323–327. doi: 10.1097/00129492-200205000-00016. PubMedCrossRef

21.

Summerfield, A. Q., Marshall, D. H., Barton, G. R., & Bloor, K. E. (2002). A cost-utility scenario analysis of bilateral cochlear implantation. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 128, 1255–1262. PubMed

22.

Palmer, C. S., Niparko, J. K., Wyatt, J. R., Rothman, M., & de Lissovoy, G. (1999). A prospective study of the cost-utility of the multichannel cochlear implant. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 125, 1221–1228. PubMed

23.

Cheng, A. K., & Niparko, J. K. (1999). Cost-utility of the cochlear implant in adults: A meta-analysis. Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 125, 1214–1218. PubMed

24.

Wyatt, J. R., Niparko, J. K., Rothman, M., & deLissovoy, G. (1996). Cost utility of the multichannel cochlear implants in 258 profoundly deaf individuals. Laryngoscope, 106, 816–821. doi: 10.1097/00005537-199607000-00006. PubMedCrossRef

25.

Wyatt, J. R., Niparko, J. K., Rothman, M. L., & DeLissovoy, G. V. (1995). Cost-effectiveness of the multichannel cochlear implant. The Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology Supplement, 166, 248–250.

26.

Lee, H. Y., Park, E. C., Kim, H. J., Choi, J. Y., & Kim, H. N. (2006). Cost-utility analysis of cochlear implants in Korea using different measures of utility. Acta Otolaryngologica, 126, 817–823. doi: 10.1080/00016480500525213. CrossRef

27.

Barton, G. R., Stacey, P. C., Fortnum, H. M., & Summerfield, A. Q. (2006). Hearing-Impaired children in the United Kingdom. IV. Cost-effectiveness of pediatric cochlear implantation. Ear and Hearing, 27, 575–588. doi: 10.1097/01.aud.0000233967.11072.24. PubMedCrossRef

28.

O’Brien, B. J., Spath, M., Blackhouse, G., Severens, J. L., Dorian, P., & Brazier, J. (2003). A view from the bridge: Agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Economics, 12, 975–981. doi: 10.1002/hec.789. PubMedCrossRef

29.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13, 873–884. doi: 10.1002/hec.866. PubMedCrossRef

30.

Hatoum, H. T., Brazier, J. E., & Akhras, K. S. (2004). Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health, 7, 602–609. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.75011.x. PubMedCrossRef

31.

Marra, C. A., Woolcott, J. C., Kopec, J. A., Shojania K, Offer, R., Brazier, J. E., Esdaile, J. M., & Anis, A. H. (2005). A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 1571–1582. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.034. PubMedCrossRef

32.

Marra, C. A., Esdaile, J. M., Guh, D., Kopec, J. A., Brazier, J. E., Koehler, B. E., Chalmers, A., Anis, A. H. (2004). A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Medical Care, 42, 1125–1131. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200411000-00012. PubMedCrossRef

33.

Barton, G. R., Bankart, J., & Davis, A. C. (2005). A comparison of the quality of life of hearing-impaired people as estimated by three different utility measures. International Journal of Audiology, 44, 157–163. doi: 10.1080/14992020500057566. PubMedCrossRef

34.

Barton, G. R., Bankart, J., Davis, A. C., & Summerfield, Q. A. (2004). Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: Results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 3, 103–105. doi: 10.2165/00148365-200403020-00006. PubMedCrossRef

35.

Kaplan, R. M., & Anderson, J. P. (1996). The general health policy model: An integrated approach. In B. Spiker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmeaeconomics in clinical trials (pp. 309–322). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.

36.

Kaplan, R. M., & Anderson, J. P. (1988). A general health policy model: Update and Applications. Health Services Research, 23, 203–235. PubMed

37.

Feeny, D., Furlong, W., & Torrance, G. (2002). Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Medical Care, 40, 113–128. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200202000-00006. PubMedCrossRef

38.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Econonmics, 21, 271–292. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8. CrossRef

39.

Pyne, J. M., Sullivan, G., Kaplan, R., & Williams, D. K. (2003). Comparing the sensitivity of generic effectiveness measures with symptom improvement in persons with schizophrenia. Medical Care, 41, 208–217. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200302000-00003. PubMedCrossRef

40.

Marra, C. A., Marion, S. A., Guh, D. P., Najafzadeh, M., Wolfe, F., Esdaile, J. M., Clarke, A. E., Gignac, M. A., & Anis, A. H. (2007). Not all “quality-adjusted life years” are equal. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 616–624. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.006. PubMedCrossRef

41.

Parsons, S. K., Barlow, S. E., Levy, S. L., Supran, S. E., & Kaplan, S. H. (1999). Health-related quality of life in pediatric bone marrow transplant survivors: According to whom? International Journal of Cancer. Supplement, 12, 46–51. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(1999)83:12±≤46::AID-IJC9≥3.0.CO;2-C. CrossRef

Titel: Health state preference scores for children with permanent childhood hearing loss: a comparative analysis of the QWB and HUI3
Auteurs: Laura Smith-Olinde
Scott D. Grosse
Frank Olinde
Patti F. Martin
John M. Tilford
Publicatiedatum: 01-08-2008
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2008
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9358-x

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2008

Comparison of perceived oral health in patients with temporomandibular disorders and dental anxiety using oral health-related quality of life profiles

Persistence of unmet need for care among people with systemic lupus erythematosus: a longitudinal study

Separating gains and losses in health when calculating the minimum important difference for mapped utility measures

Measuring breast cancer-specific health-related quality of life in South Asia: psychometric properties of the Sinhala version of the EORTC QLQ-BR23

Evidence on the construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 in patients with chronic kidney disease

Severity of cardiovascular disease and health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer: a longitudinal analysis from CaPSURE